By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – I have told this story a few times before, I chose to stay in Davis even though I would have trouble purchasing a house, largely because I preferred both the character of the college town as well as the small town feel.
After graduation, I spent some time living in Washington, DC, and later living in Sacramento. Ultimately, I came back to live in Davis because I didn’t like the ordeal of having to spent long periods of time driving to do simple things. We take for granted that we can go to a grocery store and get a meal and get back in 20 minutes.
That small town feel was a big part of why I supported the growth control measures in Davis, supported slow growth policies, and opposed many housing projects when I first got involved in local policies.
But that comfort and convenience comes with a downside.
I think the community as a whole, and probably me in particular, thought that we could almost freeze time or capture a moment. We were wrong. I have come to believe I was 
wrong.
What we did was attempt to keep Davis as it was in people’s minds when they first got here—whether it was the 1970s and 1980s for some, or the 1990s for myself.
Perhaps if I had been able to purchase a home in 1996, I would have the same thinking—freeze Davis in time, preserve what we have.
The problem is that you can’t actually do that. But we’ve tried to do exactly that.
The result is that we put Measure J in place in 2000. At the time, I supported the idea of the community having the final say over the approval of peripheral housing. A lot of people saw the rapid change in the way Davis looked from the 1980s to 2000 and wanted to slow things down.
But the result was that it made it too difficult in a place like Davis to build a reasonable amount of housing. We have seen and presented the data.
Davis over the last 23 years or so has built less than 800 single-family homes.
At the same time, it was about 17 years in between the last market rate apartments and the opening of places like Sterling, Ryder, and other apartments.
What that has done is helped drive up the cost of housing. Davis is, of course, not a bubble—despite how some may act—and so Davis was not alone in having a housing crisis, but Davis definitely did its part to help make that housing crisis more acute.
As a result—Davis was changing even without actually changing much over the last 20 years. Housing vacancies, both rentals and for sale, are difficult to come by.
We have talked a lot about the student housing crisis over the years, the fact that for several years, the vacancy rate in Davis was 0.2%. That had a huge impact on students. An increasing number suffered from housing insecurity.
Despite the fact that the university has built additional housing and the city has opened some apartment complexes in recent years, we still have a scarcity of rental housing as embodied by the fact that in January students reported having to camp outside in frigid temperatures lining up to sign leases for the fall—nine months away.
On the for-sale side, data from the month of May caught my attention. This year there were 39 home sales in Davis for the entire month. The average home was on the market just ten days. The median home price was $900,000.
There are those who acknowledge that we have a housing crisis, but they’ll argue that what we have is an affordability crisis—in that they argue we don’t need more homes for the wealthy.
But these days, $900,000 homes are not homes for the wealthy. They are the median home on the market, and frankly we don’t have enough of even those seemingly expensive homes—we had 18 or 19 total homes on the market in May that were for more than $900,000 and those were snatched up almost immediately.
The market and the state are going to force change. The state is going to compel the community to build more housing. The market is right there as well—that’s why we have five projects lining up for Measure J approvals, and now three projects in the downtown.
I was reading Rich Rifkin’s column in the Enterprise on the downtown infill: “I have already heard complaints that these multistory developments will destroy the ‘small-town’ character of Davis. No doubt our city will look different once they are built. But infusing new residents on foot and bike into the downtown will revitalize a core that needs new life.”
My response is twofold—have you been downtown lately? Downtown has been decimated. It was not in great shape before the pandemic, but it’s become even worse since.
And second, the small town character of Davis has been eviscerated by runaway home prices that have forced out the middle class and families. This community is not the vibrant place it was when I moved here.
There are those who have opposed new housing, fearing that Davis will become a new Elk Grove or Natomas, but in the process they are turning Davis into another Carmel—without the sea.
I think there are two ways to look at change:
1) Change means degradation
2) Change is an opportunity to make things better
Keeping things the way they are, as you point out, it not possible, and attempting to accomplish it creates DECAY. (see: rent control)
I look at our city which was supposed to be a bike-able small town and I see a city that could be a lot better. Despite our bike branding, in reality we are a sprawling suburb of Sacramento with tens of thousands of automotive commuters coming in and out every day.
The “small” walkable davis that I remember as an undergrad was a figment made possible by the fact that I lived in student housing close to campus, and could walk / bike around campus and downtown freely…
Most adults living in the vast tracts of R1 zoned single family housing that we have created in other parts of the city are leading an existence much more typical of suburbia that you can find anywhere else in the state. The bike lanes that we have painted onto the side of roads in a city fundamentally designed for cars are lipstick; A lie we have told ourselves about the bike capital of the world, where almost everyone drives.
So I see change not as something that is going to degrade what we have, but as an opportunity to fix what we SHOULD have done in the first place.
We cannot fundamentally avoid population growth, but we CAN funnel that growth into forms that are sustainable, bikeable, and lovely. We just have to break up with the car and accept that our buildings need to be more than 1-2 stories tall. All of the great cities that people love to walk around are dense: Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam.
Here in the US we create “lifestyle centers” which are malls you drive to which simulate dense urban retail environments… Why cant downtown be a genuine version of that?
It starts with accepting vertical growth but it is also going to absolutely require investments in transit over investments in automotive access… to quote one of my favorite urban planning youtube channels: “If you are assuming people are going to drive to come visit your walkable downtown, you are already doing it wrong”
Change is good – IF it is well thought through.
Hard to believe that anyone would advocate for “degradation”, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Further, Davis is not unique in having had less new development for years, because it is a nationwide problem. The country has been trying to survive a decimating recession for years and then a pandemic. I get tired hearing this constant complaint as if Davis is unique in this problem, but what has exasperated the housing situation is UCD’s continued negligence to build the needed housing for its enormous student population. UCD has also neglected to build any of the promised faculty and staff housing which it has reserved land for in West Village for years now. Yet, the Vanguard continues to carefully not recognize, nor address this serious and relevant issue.
Davis is a very small city (less than 10 sq. miles) and it is essentially built out now due to accelerated growth in the 90’s which should never have happened. Housing should have been phased rather then the glut that happened all at once which overwhelmed the City infrastructure and services. So that’s what you get with a lack of good planning.
Finally, change is only good when it is change for the better. And “build anything” is not good planning, nor a good philosophy.
Eileen, I hate to quibble with you, but there is no question that Davis has grown more slowly than the surrounding cities for the last two decades. We had a major growth period in the 1980’s, of course. But housing growth here has been much slower than the region and, obviously, much slower than demand would indicate as being needed.
There is no question that city policies have suppressed housing growth in Davis compared to our region.
Housing growth 2010 – 2020:
https://www.kron4.com/news/california/fastest-growing-cities-in-california/
Housing growth post-pandemic in CA:
https://www.newgeography.com/content/007716-california-2022-400000-leave-yolo-county-grows-most
Davis is not “built out.” The residents have enacted a policy that restrains annexation. But there is not presently a natural barrier to growth to the north or west. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean by “built out.” Slow growth policies can certainly create a de facto growth limit. But I agree with others, and have advocated before, that an urban limit line would be beneficial. That isn’t inherently a no- or slow-growth tool. It just creates some certainty about the likely areas of future annexation and development. Unfortunately, I don’t think you will like where most of us would draw that line, as it almost certainly would include the areas presently being proposed for new housing on the northeast side.
Good. Faculty and staff belong in town, not on campus.
Ditto! Why would we advocate for disenfranchising part of our population? Sure, first year students arguably are so transient that they should be housed on campus, but everyone else is a member of our community and should have a direct voice. There’s a word for that type of disenfranchisement–“apartheid.” We must end any discussion of enabling it.
Nor do I continue to see any real advantage to doing it that way and a lot of disadvantages.
I get tired of hearing that’s it’s a “problem” at all, especially since it’s not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97DW-V8_9Lo
What “is” true is that folks locked-up low interest rates during (and prior to) the pandemic, which is (now) causing fewer homes to be listed. Housing prices haven’t crashed to the degree expected because of this, as well as a recession which hasn’t materialized (so far).
A lot of these claims of a “housing shortage” are based upon past patterns of growth, which no longer apply. Even David has acknowledged that.
What we’re seeing here is a failure to even question the claims of a “housing shortage”. This is a failure on the part of mass media (some of which are essentially run by YIMBYs, at this point). The Chronicle, for example, essentially repeats talking points from YIMBYs.
For that matter, the only thing that’s occurring in California lately is a “shifting” of population from dense, expensive areas (such as the Bay Area) to the sprawl of places like the Sacramento region. The state itself has LOST population – for three years in a row!
Yes. There has been substantial population growth in the Sacramento housing market, which is where we are.
Analysts inside and outside of the housing industry, as well as government agencies at the state and federal levels, all agree that there is a serious housing shortage nationwide and that it is particularly acute in California.
And the driver of that shift is housing costs.
And by purposefully-accommodating that growth, it is far more environmentally-damaging (and in direct opposition to the state’s stated goals). That is, they’re moving from dense areas that have robust public transit to the sprawling suburbs.
The state’s population has been dropping – for three years in a row.
Why is it that some are pushing for policies that are in direct conflict with the state’s claimed goals? (Which includes those same state officials, as well?)
The state auditor noted that the claims put forth by state officials (e.g., RHNA targets) are not supported. Nor do they account for populations that are dropping, such as is occurring in San Francisco.
The folks who are initiating or repeating the “housing shortage” claims are generally supported by business interests which “aren’t happy” unless there’s continued growth.
There’s been very little actual analysis of the claims. And yet, some are attempting to base policy on cries of “housing shortage” alone. No analysis, no thought – just running around like a chicken with their heads cut off.
Ask yourself “why” there’s claims of housing shortages in areas with comparatively little regulation. Austin comes to mind (in regard to that initial claim), but it’s now experiencing a crash.
You mean the “shift” from the Bay Area to Sacramento?
Just to clarify, you’re claiming that housing costs “should be the same” everywhere?
Or, are you claiming that housing costs should be even lower (which would create more demand – and driving more people away from dense areas which have robust transit systems)?
Which is it?
There’s another factor going on, as well (which is related to the devastating commercial market collapse). Folks are working from home, which has increased demand for housing – but reduced demand for office space.
It is likely that some of that office space will be converted to housing, though (as usual) there’s not been any fiscal analysis that I’ve seen which shows what will happen as a result of that.
Some are referring to San Francisco, for example, as experiencing a “doom loop”. (Which will probably further reduce demand for housing, as well as prices.) San Francisco housing prices have dropped significantly, already.
Eileen
First I think we all agree that good planning is necessary and that the developments of the 1990s were the result of a lack of planning. No one is advocating for “build anything”–the thoughtful articles in the Vanguard recently from Tim Keller, Robb Davis, and Judy Corbett et al, as well as from the UCD students on what should included in the design of expanded development shows that we are far from a “build anything” mentality. Even the downtown towers recently submitted fall within the parameters that were specified through public participation in the Downtown Plan. But the most important single change needed to have good planning is to end project-by-project approval embedded in Measure J/R/D. It is impossible to comprehensively plan with that constraint.
I don’t know who is advocating for “degradation” but many voice opinions that change is degradation and as David points out, try to freeze Davis as they knew it decades ago. It’s very much like the MAGA crowd that yearns for the nostalgia of the 1950s. The past is neither as joyous as we remember it nor can we even approximate it.
Even if Davis seems “small” there is little retail available to neighborhoods on the current periphery in any direction-north, east, south or west-and most residents need to get in their cars to shop, dine or participate in community activities. We pretend to be a “small town” but outside of those who live in the core area near UCD, this is now largely a fiction. That we’ve driven out local workers and replaced them with commuters to Sacramento and Vacaville who are much less attached to Davis.
In traveling around California, “small towns” fall into two categories. The first are stagnant and dying, increasingly dominated by franchises pushing out local restaurants and shops. Walmart targets these communities because they can be easily dominated. They have no new development of any kind and their core business districts are empty. And then there are the vibrant ones, with new buildings going up, but clearly making efforts to preserve and promote a historic business district. (Winters and Woodland best illustrate this locally. Unfortunately Davis largely replaced its historic buildings with ugly 1970s versions that are best redeveloped.) Each has new housing developments on the edge of town, often with designs that were typical of pre WWII neighborhoods.
There is no “fixed” limit on the size of Davis–unlike cities in the Bay Area or in Southern California, there is no real physical barrier to expansion. How we trade off converting flat agricultural land to urban use is important and it must be done in the context of what similar conversion is happening elsewhere, e.g., will not building here induce more building in Woodland, Dixon and West Sacramento where agriculture is a more important part of their economies?
I don’t see the logic of advocating for building higher megadorms on the UCD campus and gobbling up perhaps the most valuable ag land in the world (at the most important research university in the world) and then complaining about tall towers downtown and dense apartment buildings in town and protecting relatively marginal ag land. More importantly less ag land will be consumed by the denser developments that Davis builds versus where development is most likely to occur in alternative.
Despite what you claim, there’s plenty of “artificial” barriers (as you would call them) around the Bay Area and Southern California. Sonoma and Marin are essentially the birthplaces of that.
To answer your two questions:
1) No – they’ll continue pursuing sprawl, regardless. Though even Woodland, at least, has a voter-approved urban growth boundary. (Not sure about Dixon or West Sacramento, but the latter has a “natural” barrier between it and Davis, and Sacramento itself.) If not for the causeway, there’d already be solid housing between Davis and Sacramento. The goal is to prevent that type of development. There’s already plenty of it.
2) Regarding agriculture, it is an important part of Woodland’s economy, and I assume – Dixon’s. Probably not so much for West Sacramento, but that’s just a guess.
This article (along with every other article, every single day) should be titled, “The Vanguard’s Continuing Solutions in Search of Problems”.
In other words, start with the end goal (continued sprawl), and then work backwards. See how many you can convince with complete nonsense.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
That said, while the University can play part of the solution here, we cant lump all of our downfall onto them.
Even if you subtract the university’s committed share of housing, it would not be enough. As I pointed out in this article, Davis might be a good size for the university if we were “just” a college town… but we aren’t. We are a regional suburb of Sacramento, and because cars are real and the capitol is a 20-minute shot across the causeway, we have little control over what our population “should be” and those residents are displacing ~20,000 inbound commuters everyday, at least 6000 of which are university staff. I don’t know how much staff housing the university committed to building, but I doubt it was 6000 units.
If that is what you read into my comment, you took it the wrong way. I was pointing out that some people believe that ANY change is degradation, and I don’t think its true. I think change is an opportunity IF you think it through. ( and only if… which is why I agree with the first sentiment posted above.)
That said, there are those I have seen who think rent control is a good idea, and THAT is advocating for degradation.
Yeah – they’re called “tenants”.
https://48hills.org/2018/10/new-study-says-rent-control-doesnt-discourage-new-housing/
The city of Davis is not serious about controlling costs for long term renters, albeit there’s probably relatively few of them (compared to students).
Students, in general, would not benefit much from rent control (under Costa Hawkins).
It does seem as though some have “forgotten” that the state actually did recently initiate rent control – statewide, but it’s so “generous” to landlords that some may not have even noticed it.
It appeared to be an attempt to stave-off a more significant initiative, from tenant groups. Which so far, has “worked” in regard to that.
Well, I guess, we have to agree to disagree on a number of issues here. UCD is most definitely a problem regarding its negligence to build enough housing for its students on campus, as well as not providing any housing for its faculty ans staff as promised. Further, UCD is the only UC not commited to building at least 50% on-campus student housing which is inexcusable. They have the land and that is the biggest cost factor of building new housing. Land is free on campus, but is a huge cost factor off campus for the private sector to develop.
Meanwhile, there is no “gobbling up” of land on campus housing. UCD has a 5,300 acre campus and a 900-acre core campus, the largest n the UC system. UCD needs to simply build “up” rather than out to provide as much on campus housing as possible. It is inexcusable that they are only building 4-stories with a rare 5-story for student housing. It is far more sustainable planning to provide housing on campus due to the diminished traffic and circulation, and avoiding parking issues as well, so much less impact on the climate, as well as far more convenient for the students to live on campus near their classes. Solano Park redevelopment needs to be 7-stories like the “Identity” student housing project right across the street from UCD on Russell Blvd..
Regarding Davis’ growth rate, the fact that the city is so small geographically has had everything to do with how much it has been able to grow, but all of the economic impacts over the years like the recession and pandemic certainly have been major impacts, here and elsewhere.
Sounds like one of these developers have finally told David what the minimum price will be, for one of their houses.
So of course, the next step is to say that it’s not that expensive.
Or as a real estate agent once told me in regard to some astronomical cost, it’s “just the price of a cup of coffee” (every day for the next 10,000 years).
These days, perhaps the more-accurate comparison is a “slice of avocado toast – and a latte” – in which case it might only take 8,000 years by giving that up. Or, by not buying the latest new-fangled cell phones, etc. 🙂
By the way, that agent recently told me that he’s quite certain that the closure of Genentech will significantly impact housing prices in the area (Davis, Woodland, etc.).
Do you suppose the “housing shortage people” on here will be happy about that? Something tells me the answer is “no”, since they’re the same folks who supported DISC.
These are folks who have repeatedly demonstrated that they simply want growth, for reasons they’re not disclosing. They’ll try to latch-onto whatever the latest “cause” is, to push it. Even when it conflicts with their own stated concerns. (That’s also why they oppose housing on campus, supported WDAAC’s “Davis-Connected Buyer’s Program” – while simultaneously championing concerns about segregation, etc.).
These people dig their own holes deeper, every day. There’s no credibility left to be “lost”, at this point.
All I’m left to conclude is that Ron doesn’t understand either the issues here and he’s strangely under the impression that people support growth as an end, not a means. And even more strangely that a single occurrence is sufficient to alter the overall trajectory of housing needs in an entire region.
Ron has a “friend” who is a real estate agent… well I have multiple friends in the “biotech industry”, and the real scoop on the Genentech facility is this:
Its one of the largest biotech manufacturing facilities in the world and it has never used a large part of its capacity because the scales involved are a mis-match for Genentech’s current products.. ( I have other friends who worked there and confirm this) BUT… that kind of high-volume capacity is a GREAT match for many other mass-manufactured pharmaceuticals.
So the sale of that facility is not because the Biotech sector is in trouble, it is because it is HOT and because Genentech wants to cash in on valuable manufacturing capacity they are currently not making full use of.
I have a good friend who works for a multi-national pharma company whose job it is to find existing manufacturing facilities like this and purchase them. He is one of SEVERAL companies looking at acquiring that facility.
That means that when Genentech actually sells that facility, the excess capacity in that plant which is currently idle is actually going to be put into production.. meaning MORE JOBS in biomanufacturing in Vacaville, not less.
There may be some churn to be sure… but Vacaville as a biomanufacturing hub isnt going anywhere.
“They have the land and that is the biggest cost factor of building new housing.”
A lot of the land on the periphery of Davis that has long been out of Williamson Act protection has a low cost basis as well.
The problem with faculty housing on campus is the cost of prevailing wage requirements making that housing non-competitive with off campus housing. When UCD lost in court on the issue is when they stopped progress towards faculty housing at West Village.
Actually, this is not true. The ag land close to the City is not cheap, and quite the contrary it is very expensive. The closer it is to the City the more expensive it is per acre. In contrast, UCD’s land is free, plus UCD pays no taxes (like property tax) and does not pay development fees like private developers in the City.
Further, prevailing wage apparently is not a problem for UCD to build their vanity projects like an additional music recital center and an art museum, so that is no excuse for UCD to neglect to build the promised housing for faculty and staff, and not an excuse for UCD to avoid building far more student housing on campus and building housing that needs to be far denser. The Solano Park project needs to be at least 7-stories like all the other UC’s are building, if they can do it, UCD can do it. Further, if 7-story student housing has been accomplished in the City by private developers like the “Identity” student housing project off Russell Blvd. so can UCD. Instead, right across the street, UCD built the mere 4-story and sprawling UCD Orchard Park project on-campus. How wasteful and what an example of terrible planning by UCD.
UCD teaches sustainable planning but does not practice it. UCD need to practice what they preach and teach. They are an embarrassment to the UC system with their negligent and delinquent planning practices.
Well its good to see that my years of blathering seems to be making progress. Most of what David says here today I said long ago. Sadly David can never admit that Measure J needs repeal and was a mistake. He says he supported it in 2000 but leaves out that he still supports it today.
As for downtown I’m not sure if going up is the result of climate change or Measure J or both but either way Davis will be changing from a rural college town or suburban enclave of Sacramento to an urban downtown.
Personally, I’m more comfortable going out instead of up and keeping the suburban feel of the place. But as I like to say I’m a dinosaur, who, having grown up in Los Angeles, has felt the alienation of going up. All I can say is beware of what you ask for.
One thing that seems to have somehow been overlooked is the electrification of the automobile. As cars stop running on gas and instead get charged by rooftop solar for close range commuting the impact they will have on the environment will decrease. Those demanding a carless future never seem to address that.